The Scotland on Sunday, presumably with little else to talk about, has picked up the story of who will be the next Labour leader with the news that Johann Lamont may be a caretaker leader for the next year as Scottish Labour figures out what the best way ahead is and as Jim Murphy and Sarah Boyack complete their review of the party in light of their trouncing back in May.
Opting for a caretaker leader is probably a decent move. The next Holyrood election is light years away and if it is judged that a new leader won’t have that much of an impact on council elections, then it is best to take the time and get the right person in for the long term. The problem that Labour faces in selecting a new leader though, whether it’s today or next year, is laid bare when the bookies’ favourite, Jackie Baillie, has effectively ruled herself out of the job.
Speaking with URTV (it’s a new one on me aswell), Jackie said: “I love this constituency too much to even be contemplating something like that”. Now, of course, this could be a simple bit of humble misdirection which is hardly a rarity in leadership elections but, if taken at her word, Ms Baillie is not interested.
Starting to move down the bookies’ order, you then have:
Ken MacIntosh (5/4 but broke many bridges with recent tv appearances suggesting more of the same Mr Angry type opposition),
Richard Baker (9/1 but arguably far too inexperienced and ‘shouty’ for the role),
John Park (10/1 but doesn’t seem interested),
Johann Lamont (12/1 but hardly an intellectual powerhouse),
Malcolm Chisholm (16/1 but has resigned three times recently and is short of allies in the group),
Hugh Henry (25/1, surprisingly long odds so I can only assume he isn’t interested)
So a bit of a pickle for Labour as it’s not so much that they don’t have a leading contender that they don’t have a viable contender. Indeed, for me, the only person to land a glove on the SNP Government in the few short months since the election is new MSP Kezia Dugdale. Kezia’s campaign to ensure interns get paid a proper salary and that employers meet the National Minimum Wage of £7.15 an hour culminated in attention-grabbing articles stating that the Scottish Government itself is funding bodies with almost 1,000 people paid below this level.
Now, does this mean that Kez should be a contender for leader? No, probably not, we don’t ‘opposition by FOI request’ for a start, but it does underline and indeed undermine the weak challenge from other MSPs in the Labour group.
So what is to be done? Well, with politics now so often focussing on personalities rather than policies the obvious answer is to select someone who is already recognisable, trusted and liked. For me, that means that Scottish Labour needs to tear up whatever structures it has in place and create a looser arrangement whereby Jim Murphy MP can lead Scottish Labour from Westminster and still be effectively in charge of the Labour group in Holyrood.
Many are calling for Scottish Labour to have a stronger Saltire emblazoned on its side and arguably an MP from London leading it does not do that but, on the flip side, this is a great indirect argument in favour of the union. Scottish Labour MSPs working with Scottish MPs in London for the betterment of Scotland within the UK has a dual purpose of improving Labour’s standing with the Scottish electorate and putting in place a strong, positive narrative for the independence referendum campaign.
Furthermore, Jim Murphy has been an excellent critic of the SNP and has seemingly had an unswerving (not to mention unnerving) ability to pick the holes in the Nats’ plans that will bring the public with him. Add to that the fact that he is the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence (chief opponent to Liam Fox), a position that no member of the SNP can reach, and you have a very powerful argument for having Jim at the top of the tree.
The main problem that I would envisage this leaving for the SNP is that it would be being attacked on many fronts. Ed Miliband can provide opposition as UK Labour leader, Jim Murphy would provide opposition as Scottish Labour leader and a LOLITSP (Ken MacIntosh, say) would provide opposition from within Holyrood. Alex Salmond is a formidable politician but he’d be getting attacked on three fronts from his main rivals and, given how long he has been in power, keeping them at bay would be much harder than it has been before, particularly once the cuts begin to bite and Ed, Jim and Ken have such easy lines of criticism available to them.
Scottish Labour may be in the doldrums right now but if it thinks outside the Holyrood box, a bit of red sky thinking perhaps, a brighter new dawn may well await.
(Update – And yes, that does mean we could call Labour’s leadership ‘Jedward’ going forward!)
#1 by Holyroodpatter on July 31, 2011 - 12:14 pm
Interesting, but I still don’t buy the jim murph argument. Would he be that fussed about attacking salmond, invigorating the c team at holyrood, instigating a much needed overhaul of the entire entity of Scottish labour, whilst still building on a budding career at Westminster? Remember the rather bizarre ministerial anomaly of the likes of John Reid, Des Browne being ‘minister for defence AND scotland’ I feel that’s essentially what your proposing. How much did those chaps spend on Scotland? Negligible.
On your candidates John park has ruled himself out twice and yet still his odds tumble. If I were a labourite the seeming inevitability of ken would be a tad disheartening. Has he landed blows as a shadow minister? What was he even shadowing. He has to build a countrywide profile (against the most easily recognisable politician in the land, no less) and, respected though he may be, it’s hard not to admit he is starting from zero.
Dearth seems the appropriate word, long may it continue..,
#2 by Random Lurking Scotsman on July 31, 2011 - 12:22 pm
Ah, the ScotLab leadership contest. I haven’t actually paid much attention to it, to be honest, as unless Labour manage to fix their attitude where they send their best to Westminster and view Holyrood as being like Hoth to take on the Galactic Empire at Westminster, I’m not voting for them.
I voted SNP at the last election, although I’m not ideologically bound to them and if Labour can come up with a more convincing narrative then I would consider lending them my vote. But the idea of a Scottish Labour leader being a Westminster MP just strikes me as a continuation of the same old attitude which lost them the last election.
It raises the ludicrous idea that if the next Scottish Labour leader wins the next election (it could happen… an observation: many governments run out of puff after two terms) and Scotland isn’t independent, the First Minister of Scotland will be there taking orders from a Westminster MP! If Labour really wanted to take down the SNP long term, they need to start putting those that in the old days they would have sent to Westminster into Holyrood instead.
Rather than some of the glorified city councillors they have, send the A-team to Holyrood to hold Salmond’s feet to the fire like an opposition should, and leave the B-team at Westminster to voice their concerns about the export of British drain covers to other countries. Salmond fights in an aggressive Westminster style, rolling over his opponents with stage presence and witty putdowns, whereas the ScotLab group mostly ask questions timidly. Labour needs someone who can shoot back – let someone who would have been wasted on the backbenches in London really shine in Edinburgh!
I suppose an effective alternative model might actually come from Westminster, though. We can’t learn too much from the Chuckle Brothers as they play “to me, to you” with the UK economy, but one thing that could work is a sort of joint-leadership, where a Westminster MP and a Holyrood MSP both run the party as equal partners, with the Holyrood MSP assuming seniority if they win the next election. I could see that model being more persuasive to voters – anything else and the SNP will rip them apart again.
#3 by Jeff on July 31, 2011 - 1:02 pm
Very good points. I have reservations about co-leaders dating back to Alex Smith and Jocky Scott co-managing Aberdeen in the early 90s but an equal partnership could well work, there’d still be that 3-pronged attack and, as you say, Holyrood wouldn’t be seen to be subservient to Westminster.
#4 by DougtheDug on July 31, 2011 - 12:34 pm
Jeff, your analysis seems a bit confused here.
There is no Scottish Labour party and though the British Labour party has a Scottish region as one of their eleven UK regions none of these has a leadership structure in place to slot a leader into.
To get a Scottish Leader they will have to create a leadership structure within the Scottish Labour region and to do this they will have to change Labour’s constitution. If they try that then I can see the Welsh labour region also wanting a proper leader and also the Greater London Labour region. It could get very messy for Labour.
Ed Miliband can provide opposition as UK Labour leader, Jim Murphy would provide opposition as Scottish Labour leader and a LOLITSP (Ken MacIntosh, say) would provide opposition from within Holyrood.
Ed Milliband is the current Labour leader, Iain Gray is the current LOLITSP and though the post of Scottish Labour Leader does not exist Jim Murphy is quite at liberty to attack Alex Salmond. I’ve no idea why you think that giving Jim Murphy the official title of, “Scottish Labour Leader”, will change anything because that triumvirate are doing nothing at the moment to worry the SNP.
#5 by Jeff on July 31, 2011 - 12:56 pm
Not confused at all Doug but thanks for your concern. Call them Labour in Scotland, Scottish Labour or whatever you want but the reds north of Gretna are starting from a blank page so the party structure can effectively be whatever one chooses. I’m suggesting they create a formal Scottish Labour leader post, reporting into Ed and into whom an MSP LOLITSP would report. Changing a constitution is, I imagine, easier than people imagine (a circuitous sentence that makes it ern easier with each reading!)
In te meantime, I talk of Scottish Labour in the same way I would talk of ‘East Coast SNP’ or ‘Highlands Football’. Is there an official structure? Probably not. Is it clear what I’m talking about? Abundantly so.
You’re correct that Jim Murphy is free to attack the SNP any time but there’s a reason why he was more effective a year or so ago. He was the Secretary of State. Titles bring prestige and notoriety. It’s no different here with what I’m proposing.
And J have to say, for me, this regular criticism that ‘there is no Scottish Labour’ is a dull SNP trick to try to deny the opposition space to exist in order to boost the SNP’s chances of independence. Nobody’s buying it.
There is nowt wrong with the phrase ‘Scottish Labour’.
#6 by DougtheDug on July 31, 2011 - 1:40 pm
Actually Jeff, I don’t think Labour’s Scottish region can just make up a new party structure north of the border without reference to the Labour constitution because the Labour party constitution lays out the party structure and statutory officers. The Scottish region of Labour simply doesn’t have the power to order Scottish MP’s to report to a new regional Scottish leader.
In terms of official structure there is no “probably” about it, Labour in Scotland does have an official structure as it is set out as being equivalent to an English region in Labour’s constitution.
I make a point of distinguishing between the, “Scottish Labour Party”, and the Labour party in Scotland because there is still a belief that the terms, “Scottish Labour Party”, and, “Scottish Labour”, refer to some form of semi-autonomous party within Labour even though it’s just a registered description with the Electoral Commission.
I avoid the term, “Scottish Labour”, because it has been used continuously by Labour and the media to imply that the members of the Labour party in Scotland are members of a distinct Scottish organisation and in some way separate from the rest of the Labour party. There is no Scottish Labour party just the Labour party in Scotland and if you don’t like having the Emperor’s nakedness pointed out then I’m afraid you’ll just have to get used to it.
#7 by Doug Daniel on July 31, 2011 - 2:52 pm
I just can’t see how a Labour leader in Westminster can work. Alex Salmond may have led the SNP from Westminster for a couple of years, but it was made absolutely clear that he would be returning to Holyrood at the next opportunity, with Nicola Sturgeon proving an excellent deputy in the meantime. Not to mention the fact that in doing so, he was the leader of the whole party, rather than just a section of it.
Compare this with how it would work with Jim Murphy as Labour leader in Scotland. Murphy clearly has absolutely no intention of returning to Holyrood, particularly as the Labour Route To Stardom for Scottish members goes council -> Holyrood -> Westminster. Jim Murphy’s career is now focussed on becoming a UK cabinet minister, and I don’t think this would be compatible with being Labour Leader in Scotland. He has his defence portfolio to concentrate on, so can he really put all his effort into that and the monumental task of making Labour in Scotland a credible political force again? One of them would have to give, and it would obviously be the second task.
The fact is Scottish politics has moved on since the SNP won in 2007. The Scottish public clearly want Holyrood to be treated as a proper parliament, not as some sideshow or stepping stone to the “real deal” in London. This can only be done by having a dedicated leader in Scotland, whose sole purpose is to focus on Scottish issues and take on the SNP. You can’t do that with one eye on the UK defence minister post. More importantly, Labour need the man or woman in Holyrood to have genuine authority to take on Salmond. That means having the authority to determine Labour’s policy in Scotland. With the structure you’re suggesting Jeff (LOLITSP bowing to Scottish leader bowing to Ed Miliband), Alex Salmond is given an early Christmas present – never mind talking to the monkey instead of the organ grinder, he’s duelling with the organ itself.
The way I see it, the model of having UK parties with subservient Scottish branches is broken. People aren’t interested in electing a First Minister that has to check policies with his boss first. They certainly don’t want to be electing a First Minister who isn’t even the leader of his MSPs, which is why electing a leader from Westminster just won’t work.
#8 by Bill Pickford on July 31, 2011 - 3:02 pm
This lauding of Jim Murphy as the great attack dog is based on a false premise.
When he was SoS for Scotland he enjoyed a fawning, devoted press which treated his every utterance as if it was carved in stone and handed down from on high.
The reality is that he is unable to think on his feet in robust debate and is incapable of dealing with difficult questions and situations.
As an example I cite the evening when John Mason won the Glasgow NE by-election – Mr Murphy and John Swinney were in the STV studio with Bernard Ponsonby and a political analyst (who’s name escapes me).
As the evening wore on and the hints came through about the probable result, Mr Murphy became ever more silent and morose until, near the end, he merely sat like a wooden dummy, staring blankly into space.
Also, remember this – Mr Murphy was the gent who, when asked which job he’d like in one of the government reshuffles, said he didn’t care, “…as long as it’s not the Scottish Office.”
#9 by Don McC on July 31, 2011 - 11:08 pm
Totally agree. The limits of the great Spud Murphy were more than completely revealed over the whole Diagio debacle. This was the man who was going to fix it out whilst showing up Salmond as a waste of space. What happened? Diagio went through the motions and completely ignored Murphy who proceeded to disappear while many a distillery worker lost their jobs.
At the end of the day, without a sycophantic MSN, Murphy is revealed as, at best, a politician of moderate talents. When push comes to shove, Murphy is no more an able politician than Iain Gray. The fact that he’s been drafted in to sort out “Iain Gray’s mess” merely highlights Labour’s attitude to both Scotland and Holyrood.
#10 by Jeff on July 31, 2011 - 11:19 pm
OK, fair enough if that’s your view, but who should Labour choose as its next leader?
#11 by Dr William Reynolds on July 31, 2011 - 4:44 pm
I’m sorry Jeff,I cannot agree that Murphy has offered an effective critique of the SNP.In fact I would regard his critique to contain many logical flaws.An example was his attemot to use the economic downturn to attack the SNP.He forgot that the UK was also insolvent and that most small countries were either no worst off,or surving the recession more effectively.While doing this he also offended some countries in europe.He is a good rabble rousing speaker,no more.
I do agree that currently lab our have a very shalow talent pool to fin d a new leader for Labour in the Scottish parliamen t You dismissed the comment about there being no such thing as Scottish Labour.However,they are so closely tied to UK labour and dependent on them for money and acatavists that they are a very hollow organization.They are not autonomous,and on there own 9with a shrinking membership) would collapse.It has been suggested that another reason that Labour are delaying the election of a new leader is that it would reveal the collapse in their membership.It is a real dilemma for them.The idea of brinin g in a Westminster MP would highlight Scottish labours dependency on UK labour.
In view,the only way that Scottish labour can recover is for it to become truly independent from UK labour and to promote Scotlands move towards becoming a proper nation.Being a proper nation involves having a parliamen t that is equal to all other parliaments within the UK,having full control of the Scottish economy,and having an involvement with the worlds institutions and countries(as Scotland).All unionist partie appear very anti Scottish National interest just now.If labour can break away from that,they just might recover.anything else is cosmetic,and I do not believe that Alec Salmond will be remotely concerned about being attacked on three sides.He is a smart politician who can turn this to his advantage.
#12 by Jeff on July 31, 2011 - 8:18 pm
Fair enough. I’ve been startled at how many Scots I’ve had casual chats about this that and the other have actually used that same point that Jim Murphy often made about Ireland and Iceland falling into trouble so how can Scotland expect to make a good fist of going it alone. Maybe they didn’t take their lead from Jim but it did boost my regard for the man as a politician.
#13 by priks on July 31, 2011 - 5:02 pm
Jim Murphy has already said he doesnt really care much for Holyrood politics and just wants to focus on his Westminster cabinet-level career.
Who knows, he might become Leader of the the UK Labour party one day
#14 by Jeff on July 31, 2011 - 8:16 pm
Yep, good points. I certainly wouldn’t rule out Jim being leader of the UK Labour party one day (which I like to think backs up my claim that he’d make a good leader of the Scottish ‘wing’ (or whatever one wants to call it)).
Whether a person is interested in a role is very difficult to gauge and, who knows, he may get pressganged into it in the end but, yeah, if he’s said he’s not fussed about Holyrood then that’ll obviously reduce the chances of this happening. Funny though that he’s heading up the review into a Holyrood loss if he doesn’t care much for Holyrood politics!
#15 by An Duine Gruamach on August 1, 2011 - 2:44 pm
I suspect it might be a while before Labour risk having another Scottish leader.
#16 by DougtheDug on July 31, 2011 - 5:09 pm
An interesting question is to ask where the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland or if Labour are back in power the actual Secretary of State for Scotland will fit into this scheme of having an MP as the Labour Scottish regional leader.
Will Anne McKechin be cut out of the loop if Jim Murphy gets to be Scottish Labour Leader or will Labour make any Scottish regional leader the automatic shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and the automatic Secretary of State when they are in power.
The post of Scottish Labour leader could come to be regarded as a poisoned chalice for any ambitious Labour politician as it would doom them to the Scottish Office for the rest of their political career as long as they were in that post.
#17 by Dubbieside on July 31, 2011 - 5:52 pm
Jeff
I am rather confused (my normal state) about how effective Jim Murphy was a Scottish Secretary.
Could you list his achievements in that post, and the direct benefits that these achievements brought to Scotland.
What I remember were photos of him in a football strip showing legs that were even skinnier than Twiggies.
#18 by Jeff on July 31, 2011 - 8:10 pm
Well, clearly I’m not going to go out and list Jim M’s achievements and direct benefits that flow to Scotland etc etc. Anyway, that’s beside the point, the effectiveness of Jim Murphy as Scottish Secretary is a separate question as to whether he’d make a better leader than anyone else in the frame.
For me, that answer is a resounding Yes but my ‘evidence’ is personal and anecdotal. I did think Jim did very well in the leader debates running up to GE2010 and that’s what I have in mind for a Scottish leader position that he would take up. Would Johann Lamont, Richard Baker, Jackie Baillie do as good a job as Jim did back then? I really have trouble seeing it.
And twiggy legs or not, a Scottish leader into football is no bad thing. How would Salmond look in a footy shirt and shorts?
#19 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 12:33 am
What you’re really saying, Jeff, is that Murphy is the best of a bad lot. The MSM, desperate for anybody to match up to Salmond, gave Murphy an easy ride, making him out to be much better than the reality. When he was put on the spot, when it really mattered, Murphy made promises he just wasn’t up to keeping. He is, ultimately, no better than Iain Gray but just doesn’t matter enough in Scottish politics (a testament to how relevant the post of Scottish Secretary is these days) to be found out.
So the guy can kick a ball about. So can Gazza. Would you really want Gazza to represent you in Parliament?
#20 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 12:40 am
Jeez, I’m hardly saying Murphy should be leader cos he’s decent at football (unverified).
As for the rest of your post, we clearly hold Jim in differing levels of esteem. Fair enough. We won’t reconcile that so let’s not bother trying.
I do note once again though that noone has suggested an alternative to Jim Murphy, just tried to trash him instead. Says a lot if you ask me.
#21 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 12:53 am
That’s not very fair, Jeff. Many would give the nod to Malcolm Chisolm, one of the few Labour politicians who doesn’t suffer from a pathological hatred of all things nationalist (a failing Labour really need to get over, especially at Westminster).
#22 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 1:00 am
It’s perfectly fair, not one comment has named an MSP let alone proposed them as leader.
Malcolm Chisholm’s a good shout but can he do it given he had no base of support within party even before he flounced out of the Shadow Cabinet? Surely not.
I meant to say. (can’t believe I forgot to put this in the post), I think Lab could also go back to the Jack McConnell style of a former Council leader taking a managerial style role. Can’t think of an MSP who fits that bill though (Charlie Gordon would’ve been good if he hadn’t lost Cathcart).
#23 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 1:42 am
No, I don’t see Chisholm every being leader. As I’ve pointed out, he doesn’t have that pathological hatred of the nats that seems to be a pre-requisite these days to get on party lists and the support of the activists.
But lets just say, for the moment, that the Spud himself dained to take over the Labour group at Holyrood. He obviously won’t give up his seat at Westminster, and we can’t have a Labour politician with a dual mandate to have a seat in both parliaments, so how would things like FMQs work? Would he nominate a Labour MSP to act as proxy, allowing him to continue to demonstrate his “unswerving (not to mention unnerving) ability to pick the holes in the Nats’ plans” (which always seem to come down to “Scotland’s too wee, too poor, too stupid, a freak of a country that uniquely doesn’t have the ability to stand on its own feet”)? And would he stand in the public gallery, overseeing the chamber and ensuring his presence kept the Labour MSPs behaviour in check, something Iain Gray frequently failed to do even though he was easily within ear clipping range of them?
Scottish politics has moved on. Murphy just wouldn’t get the easy ride he used to get from the MSM (except from, perhaps, the beeb), and he knows it. The Scottish public would expect any Scottish Labour leader to be held to as much scrutiny as Salmond, and Murphy is no better under that kind of spotlight than Iain Gray (and some would say worse – if we ignore the twitch).
Take Megrahi, for example. Once he was up to speed, Gray has always been critical of the Scottish government’s decision to release the Lockerbie bomber. Murphy? He delivered a “stinging rebuke” (as some papers called it) but completely disappeared when it was revealed that the Labour government had a policy of “facilitating Megrahi’s release”, a policy that extended to every department, including the department that Murphy was minister for. Gray at least stood his ground when this came to light. Murphy stuck his fingers in his ears so he couldn’t be asked any questions about it.
At the end of the day, Murphy is not the messiah (he’s a very naughty boy!) and like that other politician who was compared to the son of god, would be found out very quickly. And then where would Scottish labour be?
#24 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 1:24 pm
Well, forgive me if I find it a bit strange that the MSP that you mention as being a potential leadership is not actually someone that you think could be leader. In that case, I suppose I’m still waiting for your suggestion as to who’d do a better job than Jim Murphy. (Don’t even think about going with Helen Eadie….!)
If Jim was leader then FMQs would work perfectly straightforwardly. There would be a LOLITSP in Parliament who would the the Holyrood leader and would work with Jim, it doesn’t even have to be on a weekly basis, to decide on policies and direction. Think of JM as being like the Director of Football and the LOLITSP as the team manager, something like that.
The rest of your post is a chastisement of Jim Murphy which, of course, is fine as you’re entitled to any view you wish but, I ask again, who would make a better Labour leader?
#25 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 4:22 pm
Oh, I think Chisolm would be a great Labour leader and has many of the qualities that Scottish Labour need to move forward.
However, because he doesn’t foam at the mouth when talking about nationalism and the SNP, I doubt he’d ever be ELECTED leader.
In terms of who’d be a better leader than Murphy….at the end of the day, he’s no better than Iain Gray, possibly even worse than Iain Gray. So why not just stick with Iain Gray?
#26 by An Duine Gruamach on August 1, 2011 - 2:49 pm
Chisolm would have been a good shout in 2007, I think, but not now. He’s not done much that looks like a man manoeuvring for a power bid, and he’s also not getting any younger. He’ll be 67 at the next election, and if he won it, he’d be FM until he’s 71.
#27 by Craig Gallagher on August 1, 2011 - 12:18 am
I think I agree more with your respondents than with you, Jeff. Your solution regarding a Westminster leader for Scottish Labour seems to me to miss the major point of Labour’s crushing defeat in May, which is that the electorate regard the parliament at Holyrood as relevant and important. Whatever you think of the SNP’s resounding win, you can’t deny a message was sent to the Labour party strategists who thought it would be a good idea to have Ed Miliband “start the fightback” in Scotland and declare that “The Tories Are Back”. The Parliament is meant to defend Scotland against Tory cuts, of course, but I can’t help but have faith that the Scottish electorate didn’t really buy Labour’s argument that they were the best defence against economic mismanagement.
Anyway, this is all to say that Labour’s only way of meeting the SNP head-on is to tackle the problem in Scotland, with a distinctive Scottish message and a Scottish leader (a post you have also, to be fair, promoted the creation of). They have to acknowledge that the first round of the War of Independence has been lost, that they can no longer pretend there isn’t a purely Scottish battleground in this conflict, and equip their troops accordingly.
#28 by Aidan Skinner on August 1, 2011 - 12:28 am
Sorry, what? In what way was the Holyrood Election about whether it was relevant to peoples lives?
#29 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 2:27 am
Ed Balls told us all to forget about Scotland and instead use our votes to send a message to the tories. The people of Scotland decided otherwise and sent a message to the Labour party instead.
#30 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 12:36 am
In an ideal world I would fully agree with you Craig but Labour can only choose from the current crop of MSPs at Holyrood and each of them have major question marks above their heads. Who would you choose as leader from the Labour bloc?
Incidentally, Ed Miliband didn’t have a great election but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jim Murphy would have if he had had an elevated role. Furthermore, I think Westminster’s role in Labour’s defeat is being heavily overplayed. Labour had a pretty rubbish leader, no decent policies that were pushed to the fore and were massively outspent. My proposal of Jim Murphy as leader would not reduce the relevance and importance of Holyrood. I would say that it would enhance it.
#31 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 1:12 am
When the election campaign was in its infancy, Iain Gray took a stance on various matters, including a council tax freeze. Now, you might have agreed with that stance (many did and still do) or you might not have but it was a stance that gave voters a clear choice between Labour and the SNP. Along comes Ed Balls, tells Gray that stance is a vote loser and Ed (Milliband) wants him to change it. Of course, the fact that allowed the SNP (and the voters) to view Iain Gray as all over the place and just copying the SNP and nobody knows what Scottish Labour actually stands for and can you really trust what Gray is saying when he’s so changeable, was neither here nor there. Labour at Westminster had spoken and Gray had to toe the party line. So I think far from others overplaying Labour at Westminster’s role in the election (“Don’t think about Scotland, think about putting Labour back on the road to power”, (c) Ed Balls, 2011), I think you’re being overly generous. Iain Gray, a man I wouldn’t have given the time of day to a few months ago, has been made to carry the can for a mess not entirely of his own making and I respect the fact he has had the integrity to step up to the plate and accept the blame. His only crime was not having the bottle to stick with his original policies and instead allow himself to be led by Westminster Labour.
#32 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 1:19 am
Well, I don’t know where you’re getting the info that Balls and Miliband told Gray to change his mind on C Tax freezes. My take was that Scottish Labour realised too late just how popular the SNP’s freeze had been and changed tack but let’s assume you’re right.
There’s no reason why they’d make the same mistake with Jim Murphy as Scottish Labour leader if a strong communication channel with a LOLITSP exists.
#33 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 1:53 am
So Iain Gray states that the council tax freeze is a bad idea, right up to Thursday 10 March, the day of Ed Balls visit to Scotland (when he declared Iain Gray was winning 3 nil).
By that Saturday (1 day after Balls had returned south), Gray had announced the council tax freeze. But it had nothing to do with Ed & Ed? Mmmmm.
Your assertion, though, that there’s no reason to make the same mistake with Murphy as leader overlooks the fact that the Labour party still thinks it’s entitled when it comes to Scottish seats at Westminster. If they felt any election campaign wasn’t going too well, they’d make Murphy change his ideas just as they did with Gray.
#34 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 2:12 am
Oops, just checked there:
On March 10, Ed Balls was in Scotland and said: “The Tories are cutting too hard and too fast and as a result families are feeling the squeeze”.
On March 11, Gray announces council tax freeze because “Ordinary working people are being squeezed by the Tory-led Government and now is not the time to increase the burden on household budgets.”
Coincidence? You decide.
#35 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 2:31 am
Another thing (I promise I’m no trying to take over the thread!!), does the fact that Murphy initially backed the other Milliband brother come into play in any of this (or does Ed accept that most Labour MPs did that as well)?
#36 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 1:31 pm
Possibly, but I would hope that the top tier of Labour wouldn’t be so petty and the most talented individuals would get the plum roles. (Not that Labour has a good history of this, I distinctly remember Susan Deacon and Wendy Alexander being excluded from McConnell’s Cabinet, seemingly for simply being in the wrong faction).
#37 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 1:29 pm
Ok, fair enough, I didn’t realise the timings were so close but, to be honest, so what? Even if Ed Balls convinced Iain Gray to change his tack (and who is to say that wasn’t a good idea), there’s theoretically nothing wrong with Labour working together at a UK level. You may say that Scotland wants Scottish Labour to fight Scottish issues but if UK colleagues can provide constructive guidance why should that avenue be ignored?
I think a hierarchical chain of UK leader -> Scottish leader -> Holyrood leader would provide the best of both worlds.
#38 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 4:18 pm
I think there’s a difference between Balls saying, “Iain, your stance is admirable but times are tough and people are going to consider their pockets as well as their politics at this election, maybe you should look at the council tax freeze again”, and, “Me and Ed [Milliband] have been talking and this is a vote loser, so get it changed, now! You better have announced this before I get off the train back home or you’re out on your ear!”.
Of course, we’ll probably never know which of these is closer to the truth until Iain publishes his memoirs (“Diary of a Subway Sandwich”?)
#39 by Craig Gallagher on August 1, 2011 - 10:40 pm
Well, I’m not a Labour party supporter at the moment, my allegiance lies firmly with the SNP, for what I think are pretty good reasons, so in that sense it wouldn’t bother me who they choose, given it would have to be the best of a bad bunch.
But from the point of view of a functioning democracy needing a decent Opposition (and, on that note, the need for someone outwith the SNP to hold them to account on their plans for independence), I would say only the likes of Hugh Henry, Malcolm Chisholm or Ken MacIntosh could even lay a glove on Salmond. I don’t think any of them will get the role, however, as Henry is too calculating to take on what seems like a loser’s brief, Chisholm is probably a bit too reasonable a politician to gain the support of the footsoldiers antipathetic to all things Nat and MacIntosh might be too much of an unknown quantity.
Basically, I have no faith in the Labour party managing to overcome their chronic lack of inspiration, and as such am completely uninterested in who they choose as long as they get behind the person and actually try to face up to the fundamental problems assailing their movement. A Westminster-based leader would not do this.
#40 by Don McC on August 1, 2011 - 12:42 am
A quick shift of LabourHame highlights that, as far as Scottish Labour is concerned, the SNP’s vision is one of narrow parochialism, so they still believe the can pretend there isn’t a purely Scottish battleground in this conflict.
This, as far as I’m concerned, is actually a good thing. Yes, it sounds the death knell for the Labour party as it currently exists but the Labour party as it currently exists does not serve Scotland very well and hasn’t for a long time. Murphy and co just aren’t the people to turn this around. We’re all laughing at the Lib Dums terminal decline just now but it might not be that long before the Labour party are looking at winning a similar tally of seats.
#41 by Dr William Reynolds on August 1, 2011 - 8:22 am
jeff,Murphy did try to exploit the economic problems of Ireland and Iceland to damage the SNP.In spite of your anecdotal evidence,his spin on those matters didn’t damage the SNP electorally,or have much effect on surveys of public opinion about independence and/or full fiscal autonomy.
His problem,is that the facts dont fit with his rhetoric.The countries that comprise the arc of insolvency includes the UK and teothers effected are doing as well or better than the UK.Many other countries,eg Norway and Finland were hardly effected by the recession in the same way as the UK.Finlands Banks remained stable and they continued to give low interest loans.Better people than Murphy have challenged the spin that an independent Scotland would have been in greater trouble outside of the so called protection of the UK.This includes several leading economists,who have explained why an independent Scotland could have supported it Banks,should they have been allowed to collapse.Murphy is way out of his depth.I do accept that there is a need to explain this to the public at large,but if Murphy’s intention was to damage the SNP electorally,the SNP landslide in May indicates that he has much to learn.
As I said in my earlier post,if Labour are to recover,they need to move away from spin and smears.They need to stand up for Scotlands National interest (as the SNP do),We have all heard of the feeble 50 and the feeble 40.Labour never manage to protect Scotlands interests in spite of promises to protect us from the Tories.They had a good election in Scotland in 2010 but are doing nothing in Westminster to challenge the ConDem coalittion’s agenda that is harmful and disrespectful to Scotland.A typical example is the refusal to devolve the Crown Estate assets to the Scottish government.It would be nice to see labour stand together with the small group og SNP MP’s in speaking out on such matters.I won’t hold my breath.
It will take a lot more than a change of leadership to improve electoral fortunes in scotland.They need vision and optimism,similar to that of the SNP.
#42 by Indy on August 1, 2011 - 8:59 am
The primary issue I think Labour has to resolve is whether they are to become, in the words (incredibly) of Tom Harris a party which “stands up for Scottish interests against all comers” .
Because even a mediocre leader would become better if they did that. And even an outstanding politician if they were put in the position of constantly having to balance the Scottish interest against the wider UK interests of their party would inevitably be diminished.
After all Alex Salmond was not born a great politician – and he has not always been a great politician. He makes mistakes, he gets things wrong, sometimes he opens his mouth before putting his brain in gear. But what I think people recognise and value in him is the quality that Tom Harris is looking for.
#43 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 1:32 pm
Fair points Indy; but with the best will in the world, I just don’t see anyone in the current Labour group rising to that challenge in time for 2016. There are rising stars from the 2020s and beyond (Kezia Dugdale, Richard Baker and no doubt more) but if Labour wants to win in 2016 against, presumably, Nicola Sturgeon as FM, I already think they have to really think outside the box.
#44 by Indy on August 1, 2011 - 1:40 pm
I suspect they may have already written 2016 off in that sense. Their best bet is the SNP messing up. But underlying it all they are going through quite a genuine identity crisis.
#45 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 2:19 pm
Yes, true. However, as much as I’m looking forward to many of the SNP policies becoming law; a Government majority with no effective left of centre opposition worries me. Hopefully Labour will solve its crisis and get back in the game sooner rather than later.
#46 by Indy on August 1, 2011 - 3:11 pm
If they decide to go for independence they will almost certainly become more left wing and probably pick up more votes as a consequence. But they will also be making the argument for independence stronger. This is the dilemma they are struggling with. It is going to be interesting to see which way they jump or if they go for a midway position which works for no-one.
#47 by Indy on August 1, 2011 - 3:12 pm
I should clarify there I meant if they go for an independent Scottish Labour Party.
#48 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 4:01 pm
I don’t for one second imagine that Labour will ever, ever come out in favour of independence. I actually think they should firm up their unionist beliefs and I believe they could take a big majority of the Scottish public with them if they do.
#49 by Indy on August 1, 2011 - 5:36 pm
It is not a question of them coming out for independence. It is whether they will adopt a red, white and blue unionist position and line up with the Tories et al to defend Blighty from the rotten nats.
There are some who would – some Labour members for whom the Union is all-important. But equally there are Labour members who actually regard the issue of independence as being of secondary importance to their primary goals of socialism/greater fairness/call it what you will.
And then there are those, like Tom Harris, who appear to be dyed in the wool unionists but then say rather astonishing things like “It’s about Scotland first, Scottish Labour second and UK Labour third.” That is nationalist talk whichever way you look at it.
It may well be a trial run at outflanking the SNP on nationalist grounds. But the thing is that if they do that – even if it is a wholly cynical plpy – it is still going to make independence more likely. When we are in the situation where even people like Tom Harris realise that Labour cannot outflank the SNP by being more unionist we are in quite new territory.
#50 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 5:41 pm
Ah, ok, I get you now when you said “If they decide to go for independence they will almost certainly become more left wing”. I thought you meant Scottish independence as opposed to Scottish Labour independence….
#51 by Doug Daniel on August 1, 2011 - 9:34 am
Jeff – you mentioned that no one was offering alternatives to Murphy, which is probably a fair point. Well, how about Henry McLeish? He seems to be just about the only person in the Labour party who truly understands what their problems are, has some ideas about how to fix them (having ideas is a rarity in the party at the moment), and is one of the few Labour politicians I can think of who would be capable of working with the SNP when needed, rather than degenerating back to the juvenile tactics of Iain Gray and the rest of the current crop of Labour “big guns”.
Like Murphy, he isn’t an MSP, but unlike Murphy he doesn’t currently have to report to Ed Miliband, so he can still be his own man. In fact, if Labour wanted to have a Scottish leader who had a bit of autonomy, perhaps someone in his position is exactly the place to start. Besides, there’s bound to be a by-election before the next parliament, so I dare say he’d be able to enter the chamber soon enough. Perhaps a current Labour MSP could be persuaded to step down so he can fight the by-election. Someone in the east side of Scotland perhaps. Round about Lothian. The east part of Lothian, even…?
(Apart from that, everyone knows Malcolm Chisholm is the only serving MSP capable of making Labour a credible force again, but you’ve already highlighted the chances of him being elected…)
#52 by GMcM on August 1, 2011 - 2:01 pm
This round of comments has brightened up my rather dull Monday afternoon.
I love how the SNP sympathisers (and I’m really stretching the truth to say simply sympathisers) are all behind people like Chisholm and McLeish to be the next Scottish Labour leader. Could that have anything to do with the fact these people have given the SNP an easy time over the past few years and both have a chip on their shoulders regarding Labour. Henry McLeish can’t help but snipe from the sidelines.
Scottish Labour need an optimistic, aspirational and inspirational leader. We SHOULD be negative about the SNP and their plans for independence. What will win support back for the party is a clear articulation of our beliefs of social justice, aspiration, fairness, equality etc
I believe the people who moved away from Labour want to vote Labour again but want and need a Scottish Labour leader who will inspire them to believe we can create a better country than we have at present and that we are the only party who have the ability to deliver that.
The SNP’s record shows they cannot create a fairer society and quite frankly they don’t care – it’s not what drives them in politics. Separation is what gets them out of bed in the morning.
#53 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 2:18 pm
Well, I don’t know GMcM, Malcolm Chisholm votes with his head and heart; is it so wrong for even ‘SNP sympathisers’ to recognise the progress that that marks in a Labour leader? The Scottish public is waiting to be inspired and Chisholm and McLeish have that capacity more than Baillie and Baker as far as I can see. My real hope is that Hugh Henry will do it but, failing that, as I say, it’d be Jim Murphy.
Where do you stand? You talk a good rhetorical game in your last few paragraphs but it’s just words. If McLeish and Chisholm are the scurrilous pro-SNP choices, what would be your unvarnished option for leader?
#54 by GMcM on August 1, 2011 - 3:07 pm
There’s a problem I have with the view that you have to vote against your party to show you vote with your heart and your head – how many SNP MSPs have voted against their party whip to show they vote with their head and heart? Also if going against your party is proof of the above statement, does that mean that the beliefs that you vote for are correct for Labour or the country?
I believe there are people within the Labour group in Holyrood who could articulate our message in a better way than the previous leader but until people announce they are standing I won’t say. There’s no point backing a horse that isn’t running!
The Labour group deserve great credit for keeping leadership speculation to a minimum – we are focusing on the review and that is the right thing to do. We must give 100% attention to that process then give 100% to the leadership selection.
There are a couple of people who you have hinted at that I would support.
#55 by Jeff on August 1, 2011 - 3:59 pm
I absolutely agree that SNP MSPs don’t always vote with their head and/or heart but we’re talking about Labour here, the SNP has a leader (with head and heart very much in place!). If you think that Labour is displaying free votes when it comes to budgets and minimum pricing then that’s fine, we don’t need to argue history either way with no resolution likely.
There is every reason for backing a horse that isn’t running, it might not get out the stables unless it thinks it has some support. I don’t really understand your reticence to name a simple name, particularly when you’re happy (somewhat bizarrely) to scoff at others who think McLeish or Chisholm would do a decent job.
I do agree with you though that the process should be allowed to complete before cases are stated and hats are thrown into rings but speculation is still valid, particularly when left-of-centre opposition in the intervening period will fall to Willie Rennie (who has had a very decent start as leader to be fair).
(PS I’m going to assume you’re a fellow Hugh Henry-er in the absence of anything firmer!)
#56 by GMcM on August 1, 2011 - 10:54 pm
I get your point about this being about Labour and not the SNP – that is precisely my point with regards to McLeish and Chisholm; the non-Labour backing contributors on this post are looking at the Labour leader situation from a partizan SNP perspective.
Obviously anyone can reply to your post with whatever contribution they wish but surely they should be looking at who is best for Labour and not who is best for the SNP!
Hugh Henry is one of the people I think would be an effective leader – there are others that I think could articulate our message in a better way than previous leaders. However I won’t back anyone until I hear what they have to say and assess whether that candidate is the best man/woman for the job.
#57 by Doug Daniel on August 2, 2011 - 11:46 am
“Obviously anyone can reply to your post with whatever contribution they wish but surely they should be looking at who is best for Labour and not who is best for the SNP!”
A telling comment there. Personally, I make my suggestions by looking at who would be the best for the country, as any Labour leader obviously has the potential to one day lead the country when the voting public forget why they stopped voting Labour in the first place and go back to them. As far as I’m concerned, the usual our-position-is-automatically-the-opposite-of-the-SNP’s attitude helps no one, which is why I want Labour to have a good leader who puts Scotland ahead of petty anti-SNP politics. I expect an effective opposition. I look at how badly it turned out when Labour in Westminster had 13 years of ineffective opposition, and I don’t want the SNP to turn sour in the same way. At the same time, I want Labour to have a leader who is able to back the government when they are doing something that clearly has the overwhelming backing of professionals etc – if the SNP had been the ones to propose the smoking ban, I find it hard to believe any Labour leader (or potential leader) would have backed it, apart perhaps from folk like McLeish or Chisholm.
If I was backing people purely on who is best for the SNP, I would be backing Richard Baker, because he’s a disaster zone. Actually, I could back pretty much any of the current contenders, because none of them seem particularly capable. But the sad fact remains that whoever gets the job could potentially become First Minister one day, and I’d rather this went to someone who is at least a good politician, even if I don’t agree with their views.
#58 by Indy on August 1, 2011 - 5:51 pm
The only real reason to vote against your party in parliament is if you are being asked to vote against the policies and values that you were elected to represent.
That is why the SNP has not had any rebellions, because they have not asked people to support anything which was against party policy or challenged the party’s core values.
#59 by Una on August 1, 2011 - 2:59 pm
“The SNP’s record shows they cannot create a fairer society and quite frankly they don’t care – it’s not what drives them in politics. Separation is what gets them out of bed in the morning.”
This is total nonsense. I won’t get into the evidence of far greater support for public services from SNP than the labour party (although it wouldn’t be hard) but who are you to say what drives the SNP team? I worked with them for 6 years – I can assure you the desire for a fairer society is front and central. Scottish Labour just wishes that weren’t the truth.
#60 by GMcM on August 1, 2011 - 11:03 pm
You know I would love to see your evidence for the ‘far’ greater public service support from the SNP. I’m guessing it won’t be too much trouble for you as ‘it wouldn’t be hard’.
Also the raison d’etre of the SNP is independence therefore THAT is front and centre not social justice. Ask yourself this question – since the SNP were elected in May, how much time have they spent on delivering social justice and what amount of time have they spent picking fights with Westminster to try and stir up grievances which they hope will turn into support for independence?
If the topics of the posts on this site are an accurate reflection of the activities of the SNP government then the latter is well ahead.
That doesn’t seem like front and centre to me.
#61 by Indy on August 2, 2011 - 10:42 am
Define “social justice” – that is such a vague term as to be meaningless.
I could pick out a few issues where the SNP has taken action which Labour was either too gutless or too thirled to right wing/market values to take when they were in office to make society generally fairer, such as ending right to buy for new social housing, supporting the extension of hate crimes legislation to include all the people it was supposed to include in the first place, reversing Labour’s policy of discriminating against the children of asylum seekers and ending privatisation in the NHS,
What kinds of things were you thinking of?
#62 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 2, 2011 - 9:04 am
If any psephologists are looking for reasons why Labour is doomed in Scotland, they could do little better than read GMcM’s post at #52 above. It’s as spectacular an example of denial as one could ever wish for.
Holyrood’s PR system did a good job of disguising just how big a spanking Labour got in May. The SNP won the constituency vote by a staggering margin of 53-15, and it would only need to turn round 4,000 more votes (in total) to make that 62-6 in 2016. G’s deluded refusal to acknowledge that *just maybe* this means the electorate actually support the SNP’s direction for the country, and that *perhaps* Labour might need to triangulate a little bit in that direction, is telling, yet all too depressingly unsurprising.
Presumably, G, you think that the thing that’ll wake the electorate up and bring them back home to Labour is the same bitter, negative Nat-bashing stance that did so well for them three months ago, only more so. But the truth is that someone like Chisholm or McLeish is Labour’s *only* hope of inching back towards relevance. When even Anniesland and Shettleston are falling, it’s pretty safe to say that Labour’s ancient spell is broken.
“What will win support back for the party is a clear articulation of our beliefs of social justice, aspiration, fairness, equality etc”
No, what might win back support is a DEMONSTRATION of those beliefs. Labour held power in the UK for 13 years and spectacularly failed to do any such thing. Social mobility declined under Labour. Equality and social justice declined too, as the gap between rich and poor grew and the worst-off and most vulnerable paid for the bankers’ failures and bonuses.
Unfortunately, New Labour helped create a climate south of the border where socialism is a tainted brand, derided as as a self-evidently invalid ideology. And to see how true that is, all you needed to do was watch in dismay as Ed Milliband, in practically his first public statement as leader, mockingly disavowed (with the words “Come off it”) the idea that he might be “red”.
The leader if the Labour Party is SUPPOSED to be bloody red! If you’re led by a man scared of being called red, it’s infantile to imagine the party is going to swing back to the values of social justice under which it was formed and for which it used to stand. Middle England just won’t wear it, and there are a lot more votes there than there are in Scotland.
Of course, as an SNP “sympathiser” – a word you use in much the same tone one might expect to hear “collaborator” in – I sort of hope you continue the “LA LA LA NOT LISTENING” policy, because I think it’d be interesting to see the SNP get over 100 seats next time round and just unilaterally declare Scotland independent by mandate.
But despite the years of poisonous abuse that have served so poorly as “opposition”, most SNP supporters I know actually want an effective left-wing alternative in the Parliament. Absolute power is rarely a good thing no matter who wields it.
You and those like you are too blinded by hatred to see the way forward. I’d like to laugh as the SNP take advantage, but the future of my country is too important for that.
#63 by CassiusClaymore on August 1, 2011 - 3:00 pm
Labour have no credible candidate for a Scottish leader other than people who don’t want the job – Brown, Darling, Alexander, Murphy etc.
They have persistently sent their A-team (such as it is) to Westminster, leaving Holyrood for the B-team. Then, half the B-team got wiped out because they were too arrogant to put themselves on the lists. So, they’re now left with picking a leader from this heady mix of B- and C-teamers.
Worse, many Labour MSPs see Holyrood as a stepping stone to Westminster (pace Curran, Jamieson) and this reinforces the impression that your average Labourite’s interest in Scotland begins and ends with “these extra 59 seats might help us get a Westminster majority”.
Labour have no credible candidate at Holyrood. Gray was the best they had, which is why he was leader in the first place. The unfortunate replacement is going to be filleted every week at FMQs and there’s absolutely nothing they can do about it for the next 5 years. And, if they pick a leader from Westminster, they will inevitably be slated as (still) being a creature of London Labour.
As for the oleaginous Jim Murphy – his repeated and disgraceful denigration of Ireland, for juvenile political gain, was astonishingly crass. Particularly so, since I believe Murphy’s ancestors came to Scotland from the Emerald Isle. Not content with routinely denigrating his own country for personal advancement, he’s also quite happy to defame the land of his ancestors for the same purpose.
Not a man to be admired.
CC
#64 by Indy on August 1, 2011 - 4:06 pm
It’s interesting that there has been quite a discussion among Labour activists at the various groups of voters they have “lost” including the “Catholic vote”. and speculation about how they can win them back. Personally I am pretty sceptical that there is such a thing as the “Catholic vote” but you wonder if it has never occured to Labour peeps that the constant sneering at and denigration of Ireland that Jim Murphy and Iain Gray in particular were guilty of may have had a little something to do with losing the “Catholic vote”!
#65 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 2, 2011 - 10:52 am
That’s a really interesting point that I’ve never seen anyone make before. I honestly don’t believe Labour even stop to think about the impact of their pronouncements on the public, so long as there might be a political point to be scored off the SNP. I don’t think people especially like it when Scottish politicians are running around slagging off other countries in general (particularly in the context of “…and if we don’t stay in the UK we could be this useless too!”), but the Irish angle in particular there is fascinating.
#66 by Random Lurking Scotsman on August 1, 2011 - 4:22 pm
The thing is, much as I approve of Salmond, a strong Scottish Labour leader in Holyrood is in all of our interests – as much as some on the internet would deny it, the FM can’t get things right all of the time and if he can steamroller anyone who challenges on him on things then it’s quite easy for the Scottish Labour leader to get steamrollered even when he has a valid point.
This is not a good situation for Scotland, but unfortunately I can’t see it being resolved any time soon.
#67 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 2, 2011 - 9:14 am
Your problem here, Jeff, is that you’re asking two entirely different questions, and shifting the goalposts to the other one any time somebody answers either one.
“Who would be the best leader for Labour in Scotland, in terms of reviving the party’s electoral fortnes?” is an entirely different question to “Who is likely to be elected as Labour’s next leader in Scotland?”
Indeed, on the evidence before us, the two questions are diametrically opposed. It’s not possible to give the same answer to both of them, so perhaps you might want to be clearer about which one it is you’re actually asking.
The title of your post tells the story far more effectively and accurately than anything you’ve written below it. There currently IS no answer for Labour. They have no talent whatsoever to choose from. All they can do for the next five years, unless someone spectacular suddenly appears from nowhere, is sit tight, try to pick a leader who won’t make things too much worse, and pray that the SNP screw up somehow.
#68 by Jeff on August 2, 2011 - 9:51 am
Thanks for the comment Rev but I don’t agree with you at all. I am assuming, quite reasonably I believe, that Labour members want to win the next election and also that they want the best leader in place to enable them to do that (whether he or she sits within or outwith Holyrood). What seems to be happening is that people are overthinking and overanalysing it which, to be honest, has surprised me. I don’t really get why folk are so cagey to name names but each to their own and, as was commented before, the review hasn’t even completed yet so speculation may be premature anyway.
However, you’re conclusion of ‘They have no answer, there are no options’, well, I’m sure that’d go down a storm if it was taken to NEC/ordinary members.
Some people can sit back and lob insults, others can pragmatically try to tease out the best way forward, even from a Devil’s Advocate perspective. You’ve chosen the latter, that’s your call.
#69 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 2, 2011 - 10:37 am
“I am assuming, quite reasonably I believe, that Labour members want to win the next election and also that they want the best leader in place to enable them to do that”
See, you’d HOPE that would be the case, but there’s little evidence of it. From what I’ve been able to see, from looking at Labour Hame and the comments of posters like GMcM, is that Labour do indeed WANT to win the next election, but in the same way that I want to be able to fly or turn invisible at will, ie in an empty fantasy daydreaming sort of way.
The Scottish electorate rejected Labour’s negativity and kneejerk opposition of the last four years in the most comprehensive way imaginable. Yet by your own assertion the only Labour MSPs who deviated at all from the mindless Nat-bashing line and offered thoughtful, principled opposition have no chance of being elected leader. So what makes you think the Scottish people will vote for another Nat-basher?
Labour in Scotland are currently suffering from mass collective cognitive dissonance. That’s why there’s no viable answer to your question. “Who has a chance of being elected to lead Labour in Scotland, who might also win the 2016 Holyrood election?” is a question along the lines of “Who can East Fife select as their next manager, who’ll also get them into the Champions’ League?” They’ll pick a manager, that much is certain. But none of the options available will get them where they want to go.
I and others have already answered your question as to who’d be the best choice in terms of giving Labour a chance of victory – Chisholm or (in theory) McLeish. Your retort is that they’d never be elected leader by the Labour members. But if you’re going to disallow the only correct answer, you can’t complain that people aren’t giving you another one. It’s like asking for the answer to 2+2, but refusing to accept 4 and demanding a different one.
All the other plausible candidates will simply oversee a continuation of Labour’s inexorable slide, to marginally varying degrees, because every one of McIntosh, Lamont, Baker et al are just identikit repeats of Gray’s girning Nat-bashing.
#70 by Don McC on August 2, 2011 - 6:14 pm
Type your comment here
No, I wouldn’t quite put it that. Labour posters like GMcM do want to win the next election but they believe they can do so without having to change. LabourHame makes fascinating reading (no really) at times as it gives an insight into the thinking of the typical blogger.
The routine goes a little like this:
– A Scottish Labour MP will post something along the lines of “we need to learn from the election in May”
– A labour supporter will respond, “ah, but we don’t really. Look at that recent by-election result”
– A poster who’s not enthralled with the Labour party or in awe of Milliband/Balls/Murphy/etc. will state the blindingly obvious flaw in that response
– Admin (is he a 16 year old on work experience, btw?) will delete that post.
Almost every article follows this pattern. It’s hysterical.
#71 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 3, 2011 - 8:07 am
Your summary of a typical day on Labour Hame is of course 100% accurate, except that the post in Step 3 will probably be rejected outright rather than published and then deleted…
But you’re agreeing with the point I made originally – Labour want to win without changing. That is, they want to change the mindset of the entire electorate rather than their own policies, and that’s a task as realistic and feasible as me figuring out how to make myself invisible at will. Labour have no chance of ever winning Scotland again until they stop being so palpably, visibly angry at the voters for having the temerity to elect the SNP.
#72 by Indy on August 2, 2011 - 11:52 am
I think what Labour will be looking for primarily is not necessarily someone who can win the next election. I think they will be looking for someone who can hold the party together going forward over the next few years, during which there will be some serious restructuring of the organisation and campaign side of things, along with a close examination of policy and direction. I think this will be a very difficult process for them so, from their point of view that they need someone who is respected across the party and is a safe pair of hands, therefore I think Johann Lamont is most likely. Beyond that we will need to wait and see.
#73 by Dr William Reynolds on August 2, 2011 - 12:12 pm
For what it is worth,I believe that Malcom Chisholm would be the bsest choice for Labour Leader on the Scottish Parliament.I am an SNP member but I do respect Mr Chisholm.I met him once to discuss issues related to mental health.I believe he is a decent and competent politician.
#74 by GMcM on August 2, 2011 - 1:46 pm
It’s always nice to kick the hornets nest every so often – it makes things exciting on here!
Jeff I don’t have a problem with speculation and if we’re honest speculation is what gets the juices going over a long summer.
Surely even SNP supporters on here can see the hypocrisy in their positions. An example of this would be Labour are unelectable due to opposing the SNP’s policies. The same people who come out with this nonsense are the very same who talk down every policy proposal of Labour. Is it one rule for the SNP and one rule for Labour?
The post by Indy above just proved my point on the focus of the SNP and it’s supporters: the concept of social justice is “meaningless”!
I criticise my party on their faults and praise their achievements – how many nationalists on here do that. The numbers are few because the SNP can do no wrong.
I applaud the SNP in continuing the work of Labour in decreasing crime and waiting times in hospitals – however I hold the SNP accountable as they have brought back bed-blocking and reduced the number of civilian staff in the police by 700.
Its astonishing that the SNP supporters here cannot accept how much good work was done in the Labour years of government recently – it shows that the SNP are guilty of Labour bashing because (well just look at the comments above) they HATE Labour and what we stand for.
The gap between rich and poor may have widened, depending on the figures you look at, but there is no doubt that the lives of the many were improved during Labours time in government not just the lives of the few. My priority is to raise the floor; if the ceiling rises at the same time so be it – I won’t accept the ceiling lowering but the floor staying static just so I can say the gap has closed.
Striving for social justice is meaningless – wow
#75 by An Duine Gruamach on August 2, 2011 - 2:07 pm
You’re right – a lot of SNP supporters can be dismissive of the Labour (and Liberal Democrat) achievements, in a way that overlooks some of the real advances in Scottish life that devolution has made possible. The most obvious ones that spring to mind for me are land reform, the hunting and smoking legislation and the Gaelic Language Act. It was right of the SNP to support these measures (just as it was wrong of Labour and Liberals to oppose e.g. minimum pricing) – that was genuine consensus-based progressive work which took three (!) to tango.
I hope that can continue with issues like minimum pricing (this time) and the Crown Estates.
#76 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 2, 2011 - 2:23 pm
“Striving for social justice is meaningless – wow”
I don’t suppose we should be too surprised that you’re twisting the truth so blatantly. Indy didn’t say that striving for social justice was meaningless, she said that the term itself was so vague as to be meaningless.
By my own definition, Labour’s record on “social justice” was abysmal. Locking people up for weeks on end without charge isn’t social justice. Going to war for George Bush when two million had marched in the streets against it isn’t social justice. Presiding over massive rises in the cost of living isn’t social justice. The greatest increase in police surveillance of the public in history, coupled with billions wasted on an insane ID card system, isn’t social justice. Creating thousands of new crimes and throwing thousands more people in jail isn’t social justice. Letting the rich run away with all the money while proclaiming how “intensely relaxed” about it you are isn’t social justice. Persecuting the sick and vulnerable and unemployed isn’t social justice. Burdening our children and grandchildren with countless billions in PFI debts isn’t social justice. Etc.
But hey, maybe your definition is different to mine. Let’s hear it, then.
“there is no doubt that the lives of the many were improved during Labours time in government”
Actually there’s a very great deal of doubt about that. Bringing in a minimum wage (the single thing Labour cling to from that decade-and-a-bit) is useless if you also let rents and utility bills and everything else soar out of control.
#77 by Indy on August 2, 2011 - 2:24 pm
Your comments are still meaningless because you have not given any examples of the SNP promoting socially unjust policies or not caring about social justice (whatever that means). You have given as an example of SNP social injustice (?) bed blocking – that is certainly a problem but it is not an intentional policy and the SNP Government is working on fixing it.
On the other hand Labour intentionally rejected the almost unanimous calls to scrap right to buy, Labour intentionally left out LGBT and disabled people from the hate crimes legislation (despite strong evidence that disabled people are the most likely of all to become victims), Labour intentionally refused to give asylum seeker children the same rights as other children in Scotland and L:abour intentionally brought in privatisation to the NHS.
So once again can I ask you to give me some specific examples of where the SNP has intentionally acted in a socially unjust way?
PS: On the issue of policcing, the SNP may have reduced the number of civilian staff in the police service by 700 but they have increased the number of police officers by over 1000 so I think you are pushing it a bit to describe that as a socially unjust policy.
#78 by Jeff on August 2, 2011 - 2:49 pm
PPS Crime in Scotland is down to a 40 (forty) year low.
#79 by Indy on August 2, 2011 - 2:41 pm
Incidentally I don’t believe that the SNP can do no wrong. I think we made a number of mistakes in 2007 – 2011 and we may well make more.
But the SNP Government has not got anything fundamentally wrong as far as SNP members are concerned because they have never strayed away from the fundamental aims and values of the oarty.
Can you really say the same for Labour? What about the madness of the Iraq war? How in God’s name did the Labour Party ever get itself into the position of acting as GWB’s chief cheerleader. And here embracing PFI – or your dishonest opposition to minimum pricing? Not just the kinds of misjudgements and errors that will inevitably happen but fundamental mistakes.
#80 by GMcM on August 2, 2011 - 3:31 pm
I never said the SNP pursue unjust policies I said their focus is not on promoting a fairer society where all people are treated equally and the advantages and disadvantages are shared among all people (ie social justice). You can name all the policies you want; it still doesn’t detract from my point that the SNP focus on independence before they focus on creating a fairer society.
The PPPs that built hundreds of hospitals and schools which have lead to improving health care provision and lower unemployment across the UK? Yes they were completely unjust. Giving more and more children the opportunity to learn in quality schools is not unjust.
I don’t believe the Iraq war was unjust, you may think it was but there you go that’s democracy we can disagree. The fact people marched against the war neither proves nor disproves the the war was just.
Please tell me how Labour ‘persecuted’ the sick, vulnerable and unemployed? Does providing jobs sound like persecution to you; or improving health care and satisfaction with the NHS to record levels sound like persecution; or how about improving benefits to disabled people and bringing in central heating schemes or winter fuel payments for the elderly as well as the free bus pass?
Yes we made mistakes but take off your yellow tinted specs for a second and look at the facts. The UK was a far better place to live in than when the Tories were in power previous to Labour and now that they’re in power again. I am proud of the achievements of the Labour party over the 13yrs in Westminster and the 8yrs of power at Holyrood.
How is releasing serious offenders from jail social justice? (and I don’t just mean Megrahi) How does stopping the school building programme help to create jobs and improve the facilities for our children? How does presiding over the first increase in child poverty since the Tories were previously in power create a fairer society?
On minimum pricing: I think we should work together to bring in a policy that would improve the health of our citizens and by that we should work alongside our Westminster colleagues to bring in such a policy Unfortunately the minimum UNIT pricing proposed by the SNP would have been the wrong medicine. Yes their hearts were in the right place but that doesn’t mean the policy was any good! This policy area is one which shows the benefit of the union where we can agree on a policy to cover the entire island to benfefit everyone.
We can go on all day picking out what each party has done wrong and right but it doesn’t change the fact the SNP want independence above all else.
#81 by Indy on August 2, 2011 - 4:08 pm
Yes the SNP’s core aim is firstly independence and secondly the furtherance of all Scottish interests. Social justice we would see as flowing from that. People who govern themselves are more likely to take decisions which are in their own interests – that is a basic rule of thumb for us.
Regarding your other comments – well, my goodness me. Yes PFI provides a source of funding but here is the problem with it: “All our evidence and experience shows that once services are run for private profit, the quality of care is reduced and the public service ethos is replaced by a hard-nosed profit motive. It is about who makes the decisions about caring for your elderly relatives or your children’s education or housing the homeless-someone with their heart in the right place, or someone with an eye on the balance sheet. ” Not the SNP’s words – Unison’s wprds.
The Iraq war: “I criticise nobody faced with making the toughest of decisions and I honour our troops who fought and died there. But I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that. Wrong because that war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances and because we undermined the United Nations.” Not the SNP. Ed Milliband.
You then say the UK was a far better place to live in than when the Tories were in power previous to Labour and now that they’re in power again. Just remind us why it is that the Tories get to govern Scotland when they lost the election here? Social justice perchance?
Also how could you possibly imagine that keeping a dying man who no longer represents a threat to anyone in prison could represent social justice? That truly beggars belief.
#82 by Don McC on August 2, 2011 - 6:45 pm
Like the economy, the SNP believe they would be in a better position to deliver these aim if they had more of the levers required available. Independence isn’t a goal in itself, independence supporters just happen to to believe independence would make Scotland better.
On an aside, Gray’s desperate attempt to assert that because the SNP want independence it means they’ll take their eye off the ball in terms of jobs, etc. appeared to gain zero traction with the voters, many of whom accept that independence is merely a tool that could potentially allow the Scottish Parliament to deliver a better Scotland.
What is unjust is the amount of money Scottish taxpayers will pay for these things. Few would claim we got value for money on these projects.
Ann McKechin was on LabourHame a week or two ago decrying Alex Salmond for ignoring the plight of all these women who were suffering due to the economic downturn. As evidence of this, she cited the fact that the number of women claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance in the last 18 months has increased dramatically. Of course, pointing out that the reason for this was that HER government removed entitlement to Income Support to thousands of lone parents without making sure there were jobs to go to, leaving these women with no option but to claim JSA, soon resulted in Admin removing said comment. Removing entitlement to benefit for thousands of lone parents, yep, that’s a great example of social justice.
2 things:
1 – In what way was the SNP’s idea the wrong medicine?
2 – Sorry, without meaning to sound parochial, but the Scottish Parliament should concentrate on dealing with Scotland. This was Scottish Labour’s problem when they were in power, they were too distracted by wondering how things would play out down south, too worried that too radical an idea might stoke resentment or give Scots ideas above their station.
You claim that the SNP want independence above all else. I’ve explained to you that independence isn’t a goal in itself but a means of delivering a better Scotland.
Labour want the Union above all else, even though they know it can’t deliver a better Scotland.
I know which party I’d prefer to be distracted by their main motivation.
#83 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 2, 2011 - 10:13 pm
“We can go on all day picking out what each party has done wrong and right but it doesn’t change the fact the SNP want independence above all else.”
And yet they’ve been in government for four years already and done basically nothing towards independence. They’ve done all sorts of other things – like bringing crime to a four-decade low by putting lots more police on the streets – which have nothing whatsoever to do with independence, though. So your core premise is utterly wrong.
And if there’s a No vote in the referendum, the SNP will get on with governing the country. That’s because the electorate voted them in overwhelmingly, because evidently they didn’t believe the SNP were focused on independence above all else, and they trust them far more to run the country than Labour’s embarrassing shower of no-marks.
#84 by Billy Carlin on August 2, 2011 - 7:16 pm
GMcM – You are typical of the Labour mindset when it comes to the supposed achievements of your Labour party. You do not see the fact that all those schools, hospitals etc you boast that you have built are part of the reason the UK is bankrupt. The country was far better under Labour than it was under the Tories before and after was it – thats funny the country was left in a shambles of debt by Labour by splashing the cash with obscene amounts of debt that they had to hide away to kid everyone on that things were not as bad as they were. It is only a matter of time before this ponzi scheme played by Labour and this government collapses.
#85 by Chris on August 3, 2011 - 2:25 pm
I don’t understand your criticism of Johann Lamont as hardly an intellectual powerhouse whilst at the same time espousing Jim Murphy – touch of sexism perhaps?. Johann is a lot more intelligent and thoughtful than Jim. I’d say her main draw back is that she is not particularly comfortable in the public spotlight.
I think Labour’s task is to find the person best placed to lead in time for the next election. Anyone reasonably credible will do a sufficient job to prevent another SNP majority (particularly after a likely failed independence referendum). Coming first isn’t that important. That person may emerge or may be thrust into the parliament through a by-election.